Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Craig4]

No, the Mueller investigation was a coup attempt and the coup failed. This is why the Leftists are so upset.

Now how exactly did Putin help Trump win? This is an oft repeated slogan but there is never any evidence behind it.

Yeah that totally explains the indictments of all those Russian GRU officers who were passing hacker e-mails to Assange.

 

[acbytesla]

No, the Mueller investigation was a coup attempt and the coup failed. This is why the Leftists are so upset.

Now how exactly did Putin help Trump win? This is an oft repeated slogan but there is never any evidence behind it.

You didn't read the Mueller report did you? That you are willing to pronounce that it was a coup attempt demonstrates just your level of gullibility. Rosenstein who appointed Mueller is a long time Republican and Mueller is also. A man with more integrity than Trump could dream of having.

Why is it you repeat such total disgusting nonsensical trash? Mueller is an American war hero and long time United States law enforcement officer. You'd be hard pressed to repeat a single lie ever uttered by Mueller. As opposed to Trump who NEVER EVER seems to tell the truth.

Seriously, do you care about democratic principles? Does truth and the rule of law mean anything to you?

 

[smartcooky]

No, the Mueller investigation was a coup attempt and the coup failed. This is why the Leftists are so upset.

Now how exactly did Putin help Trump win? This is an oft repeated slogan but there is never any evidence behind it.

Here you go

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-24/russian-meddling-helped-trump-win-in-2016

However, I have very little confidence that you will even bother to read any of it, let alone all of it.

Most Trumpistas have neither the attention span to read it all, or even if they did, the intelligence to understand any of it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Everybody knows that. If you knew what you were talking about, however, you'd know that it's irrelevant.

But it sounds so deep-statey and scandalous.

The facts are so boring.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since this is based on real events it could be documentary.

If your version were the screenplay it'd be called a fictional docudrama.

OTOH, the Trump Russia collusion story is entirely fictional. This confuses many people because it is frequently shown on "news stations" like CNN, MSNBC, ABC et al. However, when you watch these stations you are watching things that are just as made-up as Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad, or even your standard Marvel or DC comic movie. Once people understand that "new stations" are fictional too, intellectual progress can be made. Until then....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Not enough evidence" Try zero evidence.

It is a legal cliche that you can indict an ham sandwich, but you cannot indict anyone over the fake Trump Russia collusion scandal. Why wasn't Joseph Mifsud or Julian Assange indicted?

Because this entire story was a western intelligence PSYOPS against the American people.

I believe we are in Infowars territory here.

 

[smartcooky]

I believe we are in Infowars territory here.

Agreed. I am pretty sure that Infowars is one of the echo-chambers tanabear lives in, and is the primary source of his schtick.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, the Mueller investigation was a coup attempt and the coup failed. This is why the Leftists are so upset.

Now how exactly did Putin help Trump win? This is an oft repeated slogan but there is never any evidence behind it.

If it was a coup attempt (that's laughable but say it was) then why aren't you looking at Pence who would become POTUS if Trump were impeached?

 

[tanabear]

TOTAL NONSENSE.

You pretend as if there isn't evidence of these things.

You ignore the Trump Tower meeting.

You ignore the countlesss contacts between Trump campaign officials and those same officials lying about it.

You ignore Trump firing Comey and him saying that the reason he fired Comey was because of the investigation.

You ignore that Trump administration has been trying not to enforce sanctions on Russia implemented first by his predecessor and then by this Republican Congress.

Trump should be impeached because he's a criminal. The orders to his administration to disobey Congressional subpoenas is a violation of the Constitution which he swore to uphold.

Then there is his corruption and violation of the Emoluments Clause

Want to pretend again that this is just because we don't like the dishonest orange turd?

Or are you going to pretend again that Trump isn't a criminal?

The Trump tower meeting was arranged by Rob Goldstone, the one time publicist for John Denver and the current publicist of Azerbaijani pop-star Emin Agalarov. He claimed to have information that would incriminate Hillary Clinton in her dealings with Russia. He didn't. Obviously big bad Vlad Putin would use a British tabloid reporter to get dirt on Hillary Clinton out into the world. Ludicrous! However, the meeting was with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and she had no dirt on Clinton whatsoever. She came to talk about repealing the Magnitsky Act. The meeting lasted 20-30 minutes and everyone left. Treason!!!

But if meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya is treason or collusion, then why didn't Bob Mueller go after Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson? Natalia Veselnitskaya met with Simpson before the Don Jr. meeting and after the meeting. The documents she took with her that day came from Fusion GPS, not Russia. Doesn't it seem more likely that this was concocted by Fusion GPS as part of their opposition research on Trump than a sinister plot by big bad Vlad. Don Jr. was never indicted for this and obtaining incriminating evidence is not illegal. This is just another Leftoid talking point.

"You ignore the countlesss contacts between Trump campaign officials and those same officials lying about it."

Can you give an example? Were these Trump campaign officials reaching out to Russians, or "Russians" trying to reach out to the Trump campaign? The distinction is very important.

"You ignore Trump firing Comey "

It was perfectly legal for Trump to fire Comey. You cannot indict someone for exercising their Constitutional authority.

"Then there is his corruption and violation of the Emoluments Clause."

Should Obama give back his Nobel Peace prize? Was that a violation of the Emoluments Clause?

So my first answer was correct. Trump should be impeached because, "I hate Trump."

 

[a_unique_person]

https://www.theage.com.au/world/nor...coups-must-be-called-out-20190529-p51s6q.html


Comey comments.

 

[tanabear]

I believe we are in Infowars territory here.

Well, let's play a little game. I like dealing in evidence not slogans.

Name one widely held belief that Americans had due to Russian influence that later turned out to be false? I want specifics on this Russian disinformation campaign.

Now I came name lots of things that Americans believed to be true that later turned out to be false due to fake news from western intelligence and western media.

1) The Iraq War – A false narrative suggesting that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden were conspiring together to attack America with WMDs and nuclear weapons(Uranium Niger forged documents, mushroom clouds over American cities etc).
2) Hands-up Don’t Shoot – A false narrative suggesting that police officers were gunning down random helpless black people for no reason. “Cops and Klan go hand and hand.”
3) The War in Syria – A false narrative suggesting that we are simultaneously fighting ISIS and attempting to overthrow Assad by supporting "moderate rebels".
4) Russia hacked the election – A fake news story and investigation suggesting that Trump conspired with Russia to steal the election from Hillary.
5) Smirkgate – White MAGA wearing high school students mob a peaceful Native elder and tease and taunt him. In reality they are waiting on a bus to pick them up and were verbally accosted by Black Hebrew Israelites.

Now give me a list of Russian disinformation that can compare to western intelligence and western media BS?

 

[smartcooky]

https://www.theage.com.au/world/nor...coups-must-be-called-out-20190529-p51s6q.html


Comey comments.

Pretty good comments there, and lays out why those who allege a "Deep State Conspiracy to Stop Trump" would have to be the dumbest people on the planet.

If it were true; if such a conspiracy did exist, then the alleged conspirators; the FBI, Comey, Strozk and McCabe would have to be the most stupid conspirators ever, because everything they did actually worked AGAINST the conspiracy!

 

[acbytesla]

The Trump tower meeting was arranged by Rob Goldstone, the one time publicist for John Denver and the current publicist of Azerbaijani pop-star Emin Agalarov. He claimed to have information that would incriminate Hillary Clinton in her dealings with Russia. He didn't. Obviously big bad Vlad Putin would use a British tabloid reporter to get dirt on Hillary Clinton out into the world. Ludicrous! However, the meeting was with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and she had no dirt on Clinton whatsoever. She came to talk about repealing the Magnitsky Act. The meeting lasted 20-30 minutes and everyone left. Treason!!!

You have NO IDEA how long the meeting lasted. Only what lying and CONVICTED campaign officials Manafort, his deputy and Trump Jr said how long it LASTED. I ALSO notice that you ignore that these people first lied that the meeting took place and that email from Rob Goldstone which said it was dirt on Hillary and that it was part of Russia's efforts to elect Trump.

Sounds like TREASON to me.

But if meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya is treason or collusion, then why didn't Bob Mueller go after Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson? Natalia Veselnitskaya met with Simpson before the Don Jr. meeting and after the meeting. The documents she took with her that day came from Fusion GPS, not Russia. Doesn't it seem more likely that this was concocted by Fusion GPS as part of their opposition research on Trump than a sinister plot by big bad Vlad. Don Jr. was never indicted for this and obtaining incriminating evidence is not illegal. This is just another Leftoid talking point.

i don't understand why.? That's not the part that is illegal. Receiving something of value from a foreign government with the intent to to influence an election is illegal. What can't be proven is if they ever received anything. But that wasn't from a lack of trying.

You ignore the countlesss contacts between Trump campaign officials and those same officials lying about it."

Can you give an example? Were these Trump campaign officials reaching out to Russians, or "Russians" trying to reach out to the Trump campaign? The distinction is very important.

Don Jr lied on security applications, as did Manafort, Gates, Flynn and Kushner. And Trump Sr lied about dictating Trump Jr's Trump Tower meeting.

"You ignore Trump firing Comey "

It was perfectly legal for Trump to fire Comey. You cannot indict someone for exercising their Constitutional authority.

Not if it was for the reason Trump Sr told Lester Holt. That there is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

"Then there is his corruption and violation of the Emoluments Clause."

Should Obama give back his Nobel Peace prize? Was that a violation of the Emoluments Clause?

Nope. Obama donated ALL the money that goes with the Nobel Prize. You're pretending as if he pocketed that 1.4 million .

OTOH, Trump has not divested and put his financial dealings in a blind trust like EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT for the last 50 years to prevent even a whiff of corruption. Instead, he his making hundreds of millions from the Saudis, the UAE other countries and lobbyists at his properties. This is A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

So my first answer was correct. Trump should be impeached because, "I hate Trump."

I hate Trump, but that isn't the reason he should be impeached and tried.

Want to try again and say that Trump isn't a criminal?

 

[PhantomWolf]

That's exactly how it works in the U.S. Once a citizen invokes the 5th at the beginning of questioning, the session is over. Likewise for testimony in criminal cases. The accused is not required to take the stand.

As long as one does not waive this Right either directly or by prior action or testimony indirectly, a citizen CANNOT be compelled to testify against himself if he feels that testimony may be used in some way to incriminate him.

And that's a fact.

Chris B.

No it's not a fact, There is some truth, but you're mixing it all up.

Pleading the 5th is a very narrowly defined action that can only occur for a witness in a trial setting. You can not plead the 5th in a police interview.

Here is what actual lawyers say about it...

[The 5th Amendment] is a narrowly tailored shield. It only protects someone in very specific contexts. Only as a witness, in a criminal trial setting, or while being interrogated by a member of the government, can this protection be invoked. It is very similar to the protections given through Miranda rights. This ability to remain silent when being questioned, and your right to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege of speaking to an attorney, are all protections granted by the Constitution.

Technically speaking, if one invokes their right to counsel, they are not “pleading the Fifth.” While one is using the Fifth Amendment protections afforded them under the law, the only place that someone can “plead the Fifth” is on the stand in a criminal trial setting.

It also does not stop the questioning....

This is an important distinction to make, because pleading the Fifth does not stop police from questioning someone in an investigation. Invoking the right to counsel, however, may stop the police from questioning a suspect or witness until their attorney is present.

Yes you have a right to not answer questions, you have a right to not be questioned without a lawyer, and you have a right when on the stand to not answer a question that could incriminate you, but you have no right not to be questioned by or investigated by the police, and nor do you have a right to not answer questions when under oath on the stand when the answers won't incriminate you.

And of course we should never forget what Trump has to say about taking the 5th.....

 

[PhantomWolf]

I know ChrisBFRPKY hates examples of how the Law actually works and proves him wrong, but here we go for those that aren't wearing blinders.

John is a thief and one night breaks into a house belonging to Charlie. While he is there, he sees Bob arrive and get in an argument with Charlie, which leads to Bob drawing a gun and shooting and killing Charlie.

Later the Police pick up John as a witness.

What are John's rights?

He has no right to have Miranda read to him because he is a witness, not a suspect. Should that change, the police need to read him Miranda as soon as they suspect him.

He can just refuse the interview.

He does have the right to not be questioned without a Lawyer, or to clearly state that he will no longer answer questions without a Lawyer. As a witness he will be required to provide his own Lawyer.

He has the right to leave the Interview at any point.

Once he has a Lawyer, the lawyer can answer questions for him, and advice him which to answer and which to not do so, most likely questions about the reason he was there.

Later on Bob is arrested for the murder.

What are Bob's Rights?

Before he is questioned, Bob must be read Miranda, because he is a suspect. This does not have to occur at the time of arrest, but does have to happen prior to any questioning.

Like John, Bob has the right to not answer questions without a Lawyer, however he does not have to provide one himself, he can use a public defender, or if he is lucky, have a lawyer assigned to him as part of their pro bono work (the former is more likely).

Bob cannot leave the interview whenever he likes.

Like John, once Bob has a Lawyer, the lawyer can answer questions for him, and advice him which to answer and which to not do so.

Eventually the Trial arrives and John is subpoenaed as a witness. (Note that this is the same for both a Trial and a Grand Jury Summons.)

John must appear at the court ready to testify.

During the trial John is called to the stand and placed under oath.

John has the right to plead the 5th to any question that would reveal why he was there, since this was a criminal act and thus he would incriminate himself.

John does not have the right to refuse to answer any questions that would not reveal his purpose for being there. Doing so could end up with him being held in contempt of court, resulting in a fine or even jail time.

His pleading the 5th to any question will not end his testifying, and he can only leave when allowed to stand down by the Judge. Unless the questioning goes on for some time requiring breaks, this will be after questioning by the side that subpoenaed him, followed by cross-examination by the other side, and finally the possibility of re-direct by the initial side. (Note: in the case of a Grand Jury, the Prosecutor will ask questions followed by possible questions from the Jury members. The Defense is not present.)

Bob on the other hand cannot be compelled to take the stand in his own defense should he not wish too. (And in the case of a Grand Jury, it is unlikely that he will even appear, though he can choose too)

Should Bob take the stand, he may, if he wishes, plead the 5th to any question that would incriminate him.

Just as with John, pleading the 5th to any question will not end his testifying, and he can only to return the dock/defense table when allowed to stand down by the Judge.

Hopefully this helps people that are confused by certain poster's BS and anti-legal claims about the real uses of the 5th and Miranda, and how you can act when a witness or a suspect/defendant.

 

[smartcooky]

I know ChrisBFRPKY hates examples of how the Law actually works and proves him wrong, but here we go for those that aren't wearing blinders.

John is a thief and one night breaks into a house belonging to Charlie. While he is there, he sees Bob arrive and get in an argument with Charlie, which leads to Bob drawing a gun and shooting and killing Charlie.

Later the Police pick up John as a witness.

What are John's rights?

He has no right to have Miranda read to him because he is a witness, not a suspect. Should that change, the police need to read him Miranda as soon as they suspect him.

He can just refuse the interview.

He does have the right to not be questioned without a Lawyer, or to clearly state that he will no longer answer questions without a Lawyer. As a witness he will be required to provide his own Lawyer.

He has the right to leave the Interview at any point.

Once he has a Lawyer, the lawyer can answer questions for him, and advice him which to answer and which to not do so, most likely questions about the reason he was there.

Later on Bob is arrested for the murder.

What are Bob's Rights?

Before he is questioned, Bob must be read Miranda, because he is a suspect. This does not have to occur at the time of arrest, but does have to happen prior to any questioning.

Like John, Bob has the right to not answer questions without a Lawyer, however he does not have to provide one himself, he can use a public defender, or if he is lucky, have a lawyer assigned to him as part of their pro bono work (the former is more likely).

Bob cannot leave the interview whenever he likes.

Like John, once Bob has a Lawyer, the lawyer can answer questions for him, and advice him which to answer and which to not do so.

Eventually the Trial arrives and John is subpoenaed as a witness. (Note that this is the same for both a Trial and a Grand Jury Summons.)

John must appear at the court ready to testify.

During the trial John is called to the stand and placed under oath.

John has the right to plead the 5th to any question that would reveal why he was there, since this was a criminal act and thus he would incriminate himself. John does not have the right to refuse to answer any questions that would not reveal his purpose for being there. Doing so could end up with him being held in contempt of court, resulting in a fine or even jail time.
His pleading the 5th to any question will not end his testifying, and he can only leave when allowed to stand down by the Judge. Unless the questioning goes on for some time requiring breaks, this will be after questioning by the side that subpoenaed him, followed by cross-examination by the other side, and finally the possibility of re-direct by the initial side. (Note: in the case of a Grand Jury, the Prosecutor will ask questions followed by possible questions from the Jury members. The Defense is not present.)

Bob on the other hand cannot be compelled to take the stand in his own defense should he not wish too. (And in the case of a Grand Jury, it is unlikely that he will even appear, though he can choose too)

Should Bob take the stand, he may, if he wishes, plead the 5th to any question that would incriminate him.

Just as with John, pleading the 5th to any question will not end his testifying, and he can only to return the dock/defense table when allowed to stand down by the Judge.

Hopefully this helps people that are confused by certain poster's BS and anti-legal claims about the real uses of the 5th and Miranda, and how you can act when a witness or a suspect/defendant.

And those, ladies, gentlemen and Trump sycophants, are the facts.

Just to add to PW's post, if John refuses to answer one or more questions based on his pleading the 5th, and it later transpires that the answers to those questions would not have incriminated him at all, then John has committed perjury; i.e. he has lied about his claim of self-incrimination.

"Mind your fingers John!" *** KLANG!! ***

 

[The Great Zaganza]

No, the Mueller investigation was a coup attempt and the coup failed. This is why the Leftists are so upset.

A Coup by his picked Deputy AG, using a lifelong Republican?

I don't see where the Lefists come into it...

 

[thaiboxerken]

A Coup by his picked Deputy AG, using a lifelong Republican?

I don't see where the Lefists come into it...

Leftists are so clever, they can get lifelong Republicans to do their bidding as well as people Trump appointed.

 

[Aridas]

Not enough evidence to indict and no evidence at all are two completely different things.

You knew that though...probably.

"Not enough evidence" Try zero evidence.

As it stands, given the Mueller Report, there's a fair bit of evidence. Far more than would be required to get convictions in an unbiased court for some of it. Mueller was exercising extreme... caution (some might even call it cowardice) in his decisions on which things to present indictments for, though. And, of course, there was the part where Trump, himself, was off the table from the start because of the OLC memo.

Because this entire story was a western intelligence PSYOPS against the American people.

Conjuring up that which is not at all in evidence to deny that which very much is in evidence is not the action of one who seeks truth.

Except from the pee-pee tape, pretty much everything in the dossier has been verified.

You're a little wrong there. Cohen's trip to Prague is the only one that has reasonable evidence against it. As for the pee tape, that's a little more complex. There were reports of multiple verified fake pee tapes, for example, but it's uncertain if there's a real one... for that. In the Mueller report, however, there's a little thing in it that indicates that Trump believed that compromising tapes existed and that action was taken to stop them from being revealed.

I can sum up the rigorous logic and evidence-based standards by the police state liberals that inhabit these forums.

"Trump is guilty of collusion."
Evidence: I hate Trump.

"Trump is guilty of obstruction."
Evidence: I hate Trump

'Trump is Putin's puppet."
Evidence: I hate Trump

"Trump should be impeached."
Evidence: I hate Trump

Oh, man, you got... wait, nope. You got nothing. Not even the attention span to understand the actual positions being presented.

If you ever have reason to employ a little introspection about why people might look down on you, that post of yours is a perfect example of arrogant stupidity... and that's twice in one day that I've had reason to use that term, much to my displeasure.

Probably, money laundering as well.

What would make you think that? Times like when he just settled when charged with 106 violations of anti-money laundering laws? Perhaps the ongoing fines for various businesses of his that consistently refuse to comply with anti-money laundering laws?

No, the Mueller investigation was a coup attempt and the coup failed. This is why the Leftists are so upset.

Thanks for admitting that you don't know what a coup is. Thanks for admitting that you have no idea what's upsetting the Leftists.

Now how exactly did Putin help Trump win? This is an oft repeated slogan but there is never any evidence behind it.

A variety of ways. Hacking and attempts to hack at his behest, with information stolen weaponized, as well as social media manipulation that was primarily Anti-Hillary and depress the Democrat vote and secondarily pro-Trump are two of the most obvious in evidence, though.

If it was a coup attempt (that's laughable but say it was) then why aren't you looking at Pence who would become POTUS if Trump were impeached?

Seriously. Even the slightest application of critical thinking gets one to that question, but I have yet to hear anyone claiming "coup" go past the surface of the obvious propaganda. Much like calling invoking the 25th Amendment "unconstitutional."

 

[thaiboxerken]

https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

Mueller certainly disagrees that this was a hoax.